Posted
by
kdawson
on Sunday May 06, 2007 @05:01PM
from the legacy-of-Chirac dept.

Reader reporter tips us to a story just up at the NYTimes reporting that the tough-talking conservative candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has won election as the president of France. His opponent, Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal, the first woman to get as far as the runoff in a presidential contest in France, has conceded defeat. The vote went 53% to Sarkozy and the turnout was a remarkable (by American standards) 85% of registered voters. Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).

Actually, speaking of the USA, how does "conservative french" relate to "conservative american". Is 'their right' our left? It appears conservatives there are pro-american, whereas conservatives here are anti-french (freedom fries?)

European conservatives generally cut taxes and also government spending compared to the left-sided parties. They also tend to look after business over their own citizens (though I fear that's a cross party issue).

In France, we have conservative politicians who somewhat favor business and increase the public debt.

The aim of Sarkozy is different :- increasing debt a lot (both public and private)!- by favoring the rich people and the big corp.

I had hoped that Slashdot would have definitely forgotten France. Instead of that, this -probably real bad- news is on the first page, one of so few first-page news about France in a year. (sigh).

What is he talking about:- suppressing inheritance taxes- easing private borowing of money (i.e. increasing bank profits for short time benefits and lifetime interests for poor people)- "an ownership society"- he is glorifying the "France of the Crusades". (discourse in besançon, March 13th 2007)- "le travail rend libre" (one of the offical videos, first sentence)- he thought some months ago that "France had been arrogant in 2003" while attempting to stop the Iraq war.- if he survives two more weeks, he will realise his public lifelong dream: becoming president in place of The President.- he is a lawyer with a speciality: fiscality. I have not written tax evasion even if you read that.

For those who don't know French, le travail rend libre means the same as Arbeit macht frei, the motto of the Auschwitz concentration camp — i.e. "Work makes one free". It seems that Sarkozy is practising dog-whistle politics [wikipedia.org].

For those who don't know French, le travail rend libre means the same as Arbeit macht frei, the motto of the Auschwitz concentration camp — i.e. "Work makes one free". It seems that Sarkozy is practising dog-whistle politics [wikipedia.org].

From what I heard on french-canadian TV (Radio-Canada), Sarkozy used this "dog-whistle politic" to get the vote of the far-right [wikipedia.org].

you mean it has been abused as a motto .
That doesn't make a statement about joy for working a nazi statement .
True , his opponents will probably use it against him . but that's just the ill nature of politics .

...
- considering that most people who currently pay this tax can afford it very well,
- considering that most heirs do not deserve their good fate, and that many of them have already received a very significant heritage under the guise of privileged conditions at the beginning of their life (address book, healthy food and home, education, free housing, cars, etc... during 50 years...)
- considering that I just paid some inheritance fees, mind you, and that Mr. Sarkozy will waste them in gifts to his really wealthy pals who escape most taxes thanks to numerous and cunningly designed-for-them fiscal holes,
- I am all _against_ any suppression of the inheritance tax.
The sole question as for me relates to enterprises being sold for cheap because the owner has died and the heirs cannot afford to pay the related taxes. Most of the time, it has not been properly prepared, but this should be addressed...

This doesn't really address the pros and cons of inheritance tax. You're against suppressing this tax (which I guess in American means "reducing" the tax), and you gladly pay it because you feel it is for the betterment of society.

This is an idealistic attitude, but the unfortunate side effect is that a business owner cannot pass his or her business on to designated heirs without their paying a crippling penalty. This affects small family run businesses like retail stores, and is a major reason why so few survive after the owner's death. It's hard enough to make a living in a small retail business without all the confiscatory taxes and fees sucking every available penny out of the budget, but then to have to have it all taken away on one's deathbed is the final blow.

On a philosophical note, one is also presupposing that the State has the right to confiscate someone's wealth at time of death, a right which is highly debatable. If you believe, as many on the Left would, that wealth is an evil thing that is usually obtained through dishonest means, then inheritance tax is merely justice. If you believe, as most on the Right would, that wealth is the fruits of one's labor (or one's ancestors' labor) and one's heirs have a duty to maintain and grow that wealth, then inheritance tax is merely another form of confiscation.

The sole question as for me relates to enterprises being sold for cheap because the owner has died and the heirs cannot afford to pay the related taxes. Most of the time, it has not been properly prepared, but this should be addressed...

Interesting example, one that I fully agree with. I'm guessing by your username and post that you're French (and living in Paris). Here's another example that you may have heard of and that you might agree with. What happens when you inherit the house that's been in the

You can't win, the right cuts taxes (for the wealthy) and increases government spending. The left increases taxes (for comfortable individuals) and increases government spending.Both cut taxes for corporations and increase government handouts to corporations. Both reduce the rights of citizens and grant new ones to corporations. Both support copyright regimes.

The right claims to cater to rural nuts and wins the heart of the 'common man' by claiming that those who educate themselves and have brains 'intellec

The election in France will almost prove to be the single most important event in this decade, for this election signals a tidal shift back to asserting that Western values are superior. This tidal shift will be resolutely proved if the French citizens give control of the French National Assembly to pro-Sarkozy politicians in June.

Note that Sarkozy is not a neoconservative in the American sense. In European culture, he may seem very conservative, but in American culture, he is mostly a moderate populist. He wants to maximize the wealth for the middle class, not the upper class.

Allow me to elaborate. First, he opposes an open-border policy. Most American neoconservatives favor an open-border policy because they like to use illegal and legal immigration to suppress wages. American agribusiness, not just Hispanic groups like La Raza, are the strongest advocates for allowing the importation of desperate foreign labor.

Sarkozy supports strong restrictions on immigration but favors treating immigrants kindly. The concept of immigrants working 14+ hours per day is considered to be cruel. He does not favor such brutal working conditions. Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. They never even noticed his rapid mental degeneration.

Second, Sarkozy supports globalization with only other free markets. So, he supports the European Union. However, he opposes fake free trade with non-free markets like India. He realizes that this kind of trade drives down the quality of life in France. He realizes that combining a free market and a non-free market damages the operation of the free market.

By contrast, American neoconservatives favor fake free trade with non-free markets like India.

Nonetheless, Sarkozy will (if the legislative election in June is favorable) will vastly transform France. It will not be the brutal kind (i.e., 14+ hours of work by illegal aliens) of capitalism in America. Rather, France will be a kinder, gentler economic superpower. If he succeeds (and I think that he will), I would likely prefer to live in France instead of America.

Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. They never even noticed his rapid mental degeneration.

I'm pretty solidly in the conservative camp and voted for Bush in 2004 but I have issues with working long hours dumping somebody into the neocon camp. I detest the neocon thinking as it is not conservative. I regret my vote for Dubya.

In my junior year of high school I pulled 60+ hour work weeks while still attending high school. My senior year I pulled 40+ hour work weeks while still attending school and competing in Track. I left the family busines but I'm the only one that has.

My father has clocked up to 106 hours a week at the family business. My brother considers it a day off when he only works 7.5 hours there this time of year. Still works 7 days a week though.

We're not immigrants. My great grandfather floated over here from the Old Country on a boat when he was 4, and at 18 set out as a share cropper. He tilled his first field with a borrowed shovel as he didn't have enough money to buy a damned shovel. He died in 2002 at the age of 86 and I went back to work after his funeral that day because that was how I was raised: You do your job.

Second, conservatives in America are opposed to illegal immigration and want to build a big wall, while liberals want open borders and no screening.

Last I knew, the conservatives in America were pretty badly split on this issue -- and I followed it reasonably closely. I believe that the parent is implying that neoconservatives are one subset of the set of conservatives who did not take the position you describe.

That said, I think there are more charitable motivations which could be assigned to the posit

First off, liberals don't know anymore what "neoconservative" actually means. It referred to Jews in the 1980s who supported Reagan. They use it today in short form, "neocon," because it sounds evil and war-like.
Second, conservatives in America are opposed to illegal immigration and want to build a big wall, while liberals want open borders and no screening.

It's interesting that you say "liberals" don't know what "neoconservative" actually means, then you say it is a term referring to "Jews in the 1980s." Although several top neocons are Jewish, not all of them are. They didn't just spring up in the 80s, and their story is far more complicated than your reductionist analysis makes it seem. That makes it difficult for anyone (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) to figure out exactly what the term means. Here's what Irving Kristol, one of the leading lights of the movement, says about neoconservatism [weeklystandard.com]. Note that he uses the term "neocon" a few times in the article. Maybe he does that because he thinks it makes him sound evil and war-like.

As for the bit about conservatives wanting to build a wall and liberals wanting no border at all, you may want to check in on that more thoroughly. The Republican Party had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House for almost six years and didn't change American immigration policy. One of the iron laws of politics is that when you have that degree of power, you use it. Look at the sweeping range of laws the Republican Party enacted over those same six years, covering every aspect of American life. If the party was truly unified in wanting to thwart illegal immigration, it would have done something.

The Republican Party had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House for almost six years and didn't change American immigration policy.

Yeah, that's the CNN version of events... In real life there's a big-ass metal wall along the border in places where there are abutting communities that wasn't there before. Just long enough to look like they're doing something, and just short enough so that people can go around it.

The currently empowered group calling themselves "republicans" want exactly the s

In terms of current political leaders, Sarkozy is most often compared to Tony Blair. Blair in turn modelled himself on Bill Clinton, so I think it's fair to say that the French right is roughly equivalent to the American left. This ignores the complication of Blair's cosying up to Bush, but that is really restricted to foreign policy.

Sarkozy is also undoubtedly the most pro-American French president ever. One of the opposition's favourite nicknames for him is "Sarkozy the American" (a deadly insult, of course!)

Actually, he's really more like Bush, but tries to cater to workers at the same time.
And "Sarkozy l'Americain" wasn't such a deadly insult, it appears, since more than 53% of the French voted for him.

>10% unemployment in a country that held out until 5/6/2007 is quite a feat, and should not be discounted.

ROTFL... that's rich. Considering the unofficial unemployment rate among young adults is widely considered around twice the official 10%. And that any American President would be out of a job if US unemployment reached anywhere near 10% officially. Face it, the French economy is tied down with the ropes of its "social net". Look at all the trouble GM and Ford are in with overpaying their noncompetitive UAW labor in salaries and benefits, and spread that across a national workforce.

In large parts of Europe, the Democrats are considered right wing, and the Republicans are considered far right wing comic relief, though the political parties on the left wing in Europe generally support the Democrats as the lesser of two evils, and the conservative parties tend to support the more moderate parts of the Republican party.

It should be pointed out that Europe's far right and America's 'normal' right really only vaguely relate. European far right parties would generally be considered extremely xenophobic by the American right. European far right parties almost always revolve around anti-immigration positions. The American right does hold sometimes hold some limited anti-immigration views, but they are rarely front and center, and they are absolutely nowhere near the extreme of their European counterparts. Comparing the American right to any European political parties is generally a mistake. While the American left has some fairly close European counterparts, the American right is fairly unique in the world.

Of course I am comparing apples to oranges. European governments and the American government are two fairly different systems that result in different parties. Now, I am not saying that Americans don't have their whack-jobs that would look at a European right winger and applaud. That said, they get almost no voice in the US. The US system shoves everyone to the center. A pure anti-immigration platform (like Le Penn's party in France) will get you seats in parliament and potentially a spot in a coalition government. In the US, it is nearly impossible for such people to get elected on a federal level. The lack of a coalition system for government means that even if such a person does get elected, they get little influence over the workings of the government.

So, I agree the lack of a strong extremist ultra-nationalist politicians (that get elected) in the US is not a unique feature of the culture, it is a unique feature of the political system. Even when such people do get elected, they are deeply marginalized. I don't have any doubt that if the US had a parliamentary style of government you would find the US having just as many (if not more) xenophobic right wing nationalist party.

My larger point is that Europeans some times assume that because the US left is like their right, the US right must be like there extreme right. This isn't the case. The things that define the European right really don't define the American right. The American right is far more concerned with economics and the occasional pet social issues, and give only passing thought to immigration. Right leaning European governments almost always are deeply concerned with immigration nationalist identity. The two are very different from each other and would likely kill each other if left in the same room for too long.

I don't know about France, but here in Germany the equivalent to the Republicans is also called Republicans.

For the benefit of Americans unfamiliar with German politics, this is a dig at the US Republicans, since Die Republikaner are generally considered a crypto-neo-nazi party and enjoy very little electoral support. The major conservative party in Germany are the Christian Democrats (CDU).

Sarkozy supports strong restrictions on immigration but favors treating immigrants kindly. The concept of immigrants working 14+ hours per day is considered to be cruel. He does not favor such brutal working conditions. Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at

Of course the terrorists win. That's what you get for agreeing to play a game whose conditions for victory are so horribly skewed in the other guy's favor. We've got to wipe out every single one of them. They just have to wait and shoot into the air every once in a while so everyone knows they didn't forfeit. So of course we're not going to win. We should have tried a lot harder to get them to play a different game.

Actually, the conditions aren't so skewed in the terrorist's favor, we are just fighting the wrong war. We can't handily win a war of bullets and lives against them, because they are willing to lose far more than we are. The war we should be fighting is in changing the values and culture of Iraq and Afganistan. Feed them the line about "the pen is mightier than the sword" and hope they buy it. I'll take angry letters and protest signs over bombings and kidnappings any day. They won't blow up LA if they are too busy watching American Idol. This is where I find myself agreeing with Sarkozy and his call for immigrants to "learn the French language and Values". This war is a war of cultures, it's not about countries and borders, it's about which set of values will endure. And multiculturalism doesn't work, unless you want to surrender all other values to it. Take Germanys conflict with multiculturalism vs. Women's Rights.

"The crux case centres on a woman called Nishal, a 26-year-old Moroccan immigrant to Germany with two kids and a psychotic husband. Since their wedding night, this husband beat the hell out of her. She crawled to the police covered in wounds, and they ordered the husband to stay away from her. He refused. He terrorised her with death threats.
So Nishal went to the courts to request an early divorce, hoping that once they were no longer married he would leave her alone. A judge who believed in the rights of women would find it very easy to make a judgement: you're free from this man, case dismissed.
But Judge Christa Datz-Winter followed the logic of multiculturalism instead. She said she would not grant an early divorce because - despite the police documentation of extreme violence and continued threats - there was no "unreasonable hardship" here.
Why? Because the woman, as a Muslim, should have "expected" it, the judge explained. She read out passages from the Koran to show that Muslim husbands have the "right to use corporal punishment". Look at Sura 4, verse 34, she said to Nishal, where the Koran says he can hammer you. That's your culture. Goodbye, and enjoy your beatings.
This is not a freakish exception. Germany's only state-level Minister for Integration, Armin Laschet, says this is only "the last link, for the time being, in a chain of horrific rulings handed down by the German courts".

Trying to preserve the French culture isn't necessarily xenophobic. A significant part of what makes a country a good or bad place to live is it's culture.(yes, language is part of a culture) For example both Saudi Arabia and the USA are wealthy countries, but ask your wife or girlfriend which one she would rather live in. There is a difference between

Sure your wife or girlfriend wants to live in the US but as a man where would You want to live? In a nation where if a girl gets pregnant she has the right to have an abortion even if the man wants the baby but on the other hand if the man doesnt want the baby the woman can go ahead and still have the baby and have to pay child support for the upkeep of the baby which is used by the mom to enjoy a life of leisure and boyfriend hopping while you work your butt off to pay Child Support. Even assets like Retirment saving and health insurance accounts which are protected even in a bankruptcy are not safe from Child Services. This is also a nation where even if the mother has been cheating in a divorce she still gets custody of the child. Further even if she denies the father child visitation rights the father still has to pay child support. Further when the mothers tricks make the man go crazy (after all he is also working a 9 to 5 job unlike the mother who is sitting at home all day on his money and plotting new ways to use his children against him) and he shouts into a phone it becomes a national scandal that a man shouted into a phone raher than a woman used children as a weapon against their father. You may criticize Saudi for being hard on their woman but USA is equally bad in the other direction. So to rephrase your question where would your husband/ biyfriend like to live USA or Saudi?

Well, things are getting better (in some places more than others), but I still think that (at least on average) they still do.

The systems lean towards women because they traditionally have had less of a voice.

Automatically giving mothers custody was due to gender roles. Dad's job was to get money, mom did the touchy-feely stuff, especially with young children. The idea that women "don't have a voice" came a fair bit after sexist divor

If the man is responsible for the child he should have say on whether or not the child is to be born. Why does only the woman get to decide on abortion? As you say a woman doesnt get pregnant out of thin air so why does she get all the rights? Also traditionally a husband was supposed to earn the money and the wife was supposed to take care of the children and the house. With the advent of labour saving devices and prepackaged food the amount of housework has drastically dropped so why is the man still supp

A girl doesn't just "get pregnant" out of thin air. The man is absolutely responsible as well and should pay his share.

Unfortunately, "his share" is considered absolutely everything. Divorce law is so insane that men have absolutely no rights, what-so-ever. You will pay every cent you have in child support, and after that, will continue to pay alimony until such time that your wife choses to get a job or remarry... or not. Such is the situation even if the woman was a drug addict, and completely unfit to

Both sides draw their power from the fight against each other. If the US stopped attacking Al Quaida, they'd have to stage another terror attack to "remind" the US that they got it in their contract to keep fighting, dammit.

And since such an attack costs, money, resources and people, Bin Laden (or whoever happens to be the head honcho now) is actually quite a bit better off when the fight continues without too much activity from his side. The US continue to "liberate" countries, the people get angry at the US and they don't even have to do anything for it 'cause it perpetuates itself.

Now imagine the Dems win and end that war. Do you think it's easy to steal two planes? That's some hard work, man!

Because, in France it's not allowed to publish voter-polls on election day before all polling-places are closed. Which happens at 8 pm.

In reality, everyone knew since these polls where in, early in the morning, that she'd lose, it's just, they all sorta pretend not to know until it's "official". You see, french law has little influence abroad, so anyone with an internet-connection has been able to read these polls all day. Only in French media are they disallowed.

So, each and every journalist covering the election, and every politician aswell, knew the result (aproximately, but good enough since it wasn't a close race anyway) hours earlier.

In this setting it makes perfect sense to admit defeat at 20:01. It'd have been disrespectful of the law and the voters to do so any earlier, and pointless to wait much longer when the numbers where as obvious as they where.

He was the only candidate who doesn't support, or even have a clear stance on free software.Not that that's the most important quality in a president, but it would have been nice.

As a fellow Slashdotter, I also care about technology issues. But at the same time realize they will have to take a back seat while there are active special intrest groups that believe the end (one world Muslim, or one world Communism) justifies the means (violence).

Except for Sarkozy, the candidates also agreed that consumers should have the right to buy a computer without any preloaded software,... Sarkozy was also the only candidate who responded with obvious hostility, remarking when talking about DADVSI that "I am opposed to the orientations implied by your questions."

He expresses his support for patent law on the grounds that it "encourages enterprises to innovate, it attracts investments, [and] encourages individuals to... develop new inventions." In addition, Sarkozy supported the concept of intellectual property, and suggested that it was premature to talk about revising DADVSI before the end of 2007, when a review is scheduled. In answer to the question about open standards and free software, he replied that "it is not the purpose of the State, in my concept of freedom, to impose a model on anyone." Other replies were so general as to suggest that he either had not considered the matter or was avoiding stating his position. As Frédéric Couchet, a director of APRIL commented, Sarkozy's "was the worst response received."

Not that that's the most important quality in a president, but it would have been nice.

If standing up for French companies and citizens by supporting their software freedom is not important, I'm not sure what is. Your computer is your press, your store of important information and your telcom all rolled into one. No modern state can live without them and their security and ownership are tantamount to independence. Does he want CIA planted backdoors in his office?

The Captain of the ship himself agrees that it was a legitimate attack. So does the Argentinian Government.

Please read up on your Falklands War history - this would be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War [wikipedia.org]good start. Especially the bits about the carrier 'Vincent De Mayo' and the damage that would have done if it ever got near the Task Force. The sinking of the Belgrano made it very clear to the Argentinian Navy that nuclear submarines

I'm not entirely sure why the France bashing continues. Frankly it appeared that they were right regarding Iraq. France is certainly one of the greatest allies this country has had, in fact we wouldn't be this large had Napolean not sold us the Louisiana Purchase to pay for his war with England. If anything we owe them quite a bit and their only crime is that they are just as patriotic to their country as we are to ours.

Now with that being said, do you know why there are trees on the Champs D'Elysees? So the Germans can march in the shade!

Spain giving Louisiana to France was just one of those colony swaps that occurred regularly in those days. Spain got Louisiana from France that way in the first place. Neither country was serious about colonizing the territory properly, which was the only way they could have held onto it. And of course, even that doesn't really work, as the American Revolution demonstrates. You just can't control territory that's so hard to communicate with and to supply.France gets accused of "stealing" Louisiana because t

They helped finance the Revolution... without France the United States would have been stillborn. They gave us the Statue of Liberty in recognition of the friendship and mutual respect between the two nations. Remember when Jane Fonda commented to Johnny Carson, "What did the French ever do for us?" That earned her Carson's famous wide-eyed "what the fuck?" look.

Of course, people would have to have some awareness of history to know any of this. There's a reason why we teach history in schools. It has numerous benefits: among other things, it helps you to remember who your friends are.

Do you know how many people the USSR lost? 27 million. By the time we invaded Normandy, Germany was already collapsing. Do you know why we waited as long as we did? Tit-for-tat revenge: Lenin pulled the newly formed Soviet Union out of WWI as soon as he took power in 1917, leaving us and our allies high and dry. We didn't need to wait as long as we did; Stalin was begging us for reinforcements, and we could have invaded at any time, but we stood our ground, as a kind of "fuck you" to the Russians, who were hemorrhaging soldiers.

I think you forgot to mention one teensy-weensy little fact about WWII - that Stalin and the USSR entered WWII on the side of the Germans! The two countries signed a pact to split up Eastern Europe between the two, and the USSR went ahead and invaded several Eastern European countries. The USSR was originally allied with the Axis powers, not the Allied powers.

So later in the war, Germany decides to double-cross the USSR and invades Russia. You've already heard rhetoric from Stalin that the USSR has its own global-domination plans, and they've already invaded several Eastern European countries. Now, would you be so quick to come to Stalin's aid, or would you rather allow the two evil countries to duke it out and weaken each other for a while first, so that the victor doesn't have the military might to come after you next?

USSR had broken the wehrmacht's steel backbone before US stepped in.And USSR had to send in every man, child because their homeland was invaded and occupied, you mor*n !If US homeland had been "entered into", am damn sure we would through all the Geneva conventions to wind and send in 5-10 yrs old... (heck even before that, we have started Gitmo, etc)So stop piggy backing on the high horse and do not even compare the casualities USSR faced with that of self-inflicted wounds like Vietnam and Iraq (now).

Disclaimer: my grandfather was a German soldier on the eastern front.When you say "but they wouldn't have stood a chance if the other Allies weren't there, also fighting", what exactly do you mean? France was occupied, Spain was neutral, Italy was one of the Axis powers -- who exactly was fighting? The French resistance? The UK was sitting on their island, getting shelled by Germany and occasionally shooting down planes over the Channel, although most of the shooting down was done by the Germans -- they

Well it was encouraged from the highest levels of Government. First of all you had Rumsfeld etc al, dismissing France as "old Europe". This was effectively an ad-hominem attack. Rather than dealing with the important issues it raised, France was effectively the subject of name calling. Then you had the "Freedom Fries" escapade in the House Of Representatives where all the menus were changed. France was then routinely accused of anti-Americanism in the media. All of this kept peoples attention away from Frances actual objections to military action, amongst which were that it did not believe there was an imminent danger from WMDs, that invading Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism and that a war would destabilize the Middle East.

The whole racist tirade against France in the US was/is interesting, especially at a time when there is so much discussion about anti-Americanism. Renaming French Fries to freedom fries is definitely anti-French, but is criticising US actions in Iraq or other foreign policy issues, Anti-American? I think not. It seems to me that currently the concept of anti-Americanism is being used as propaganda. Americans are being encouraged to feel that they themselves are being targeted in some racist way, when it is in fact government policy that is being criticised. The result of this is that people are more likely to rally behind their government when confronted with such criticism. The Russian government uses the same trick when it's policies are criticised. The Russian people are deliberately made to feel that everyone is against them.

When you are angry with a country because of specific military or political issues, you should address those specific issues and argue your case. It's all to easy to be dragged into name calling by government and the media.

First off, there was a choice between Iraq or Iran. Gee, we picked the lesser of two evils.

Not really, the US doesn't always pick the lesser of two evils. The US Government first picks an enemy for its own reasons, then and only then, it rationalizes its decision after-the-fact by demonizing its chosen enemy and by praising its chosen ally.
I could give you specific examples, but frankly -- I'm not even sure you'd be willing to change your mind -- so I'm not going to bother citing those examples unless y

This will be a good thing for France's economy, which has been sluggish in recent years due to the country's labor policies. It is illegal in France to work more than 35 hours a week, which makes it difficult to successfully start a small business. Royal offered a comforting promise that France could keep their old ways in place and still be economically competitive, but France has apparently opted for a tougher kind of love.

Furthermore, just because he's "conservative" by French standards, don't think that means he'd belong to the GOP.

Come on, that's a fallacy. Not only is the 35h-week not implemented in small businesses, but white collars work in majority more than 50 hours, often 60 a week, due to peer and hierarchy pressure, and a stupid culture of thinking that it's the hours spent on your desk that count. And in contrast with our big neighbour Germany, or Scandinavian countries (Denmark has a 37h-week that is quite respected even for white collars), french white collars do not get paid for overtime.

Actually, the 35h week is the least of the problems, although I'll welcome its demise if it comes as a way to slack off and be paid for more hours at the same time(the main effect of the 35h week has been to increase per-worker productivity by increasing the work pace, and not reduce unemployment as it was intended).
Anyway I don't think many people in France believed in Royal's programme or ideas, most of those 47% who voted for her mostly did it as a vote against Sarkozy. That's my case, I can't stand his

The hardships of past generations should not be used to justify hardships in this generation.

Feel free to tell her that. =)

Most of the rest of your comment is completely off-target. Her cooking is distinctly Italian, she regularly attends mass at a Italian-American Roman Catholic church, practices her Italian regularly with other Italian-American friends and with family still overseas... although she's recently had to cut back on her use of vulgar Italian now that my cousins are finally distracting h

I hardly ever agree with the Republicans on anything but English as an offical language makes sense. Multiculturalism is a good thing and if it wont be promoted in a nation of immigrants where will it be? At the same time it does cost money to print things in multiple languages. I would think a rich nation like USA should be able to afford the costs but if certain towns and cities are economically depressed and cant afford the cost they should be able to just print in English. At the same time Language is i

Most important for slashdot readers: Nicolas Sarkozy is a lawyer and has a very strong pro-software patent stance and was behind the hardline DADVSI [wikipedia.org] copyright law (our local DMCA). He was also behind the introduction of voting machines without paper trail requirements, and of the "secret" report about their validity (no citizen could get the report.

More in the PDF with his answers to the "candidats.fr" initiative here [candidats.fr]

Hard time for free software in France. There are still the parliament election next month, but last time french voters put the majority behind the president.

Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).

Some of that is good. There has been some very bad "multiculturalism" case law in the EU recently, where women have been beaten and abused but that was OK because it was supposedly "their" culture and the host country should not interfere. This makes a mockery of the foreign culture as well as allowing injustice. It is right for France, and every other country, to demand respect and offer protection for all of their citizens. Injustice and brutality should not be tolerated anywhere. Doing so in the name of "in my country we put woman in cage" is racism in disguise.

Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).

How do you say 'Thank you, Diebold' in French?

Seriously, though, if I'm going to move to France I'm at least going to try and learn French. And I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if you want to come and work in America, you might pick up a little English first.

Perhaps making it a demand is what makes it unreasonable? I'm not sure. It doesn't seem like it should be that divisive. To me it would be reasonable to expect that those wishing to immigrate would reflect the values and language of their adopted country.

If I moved to Canada I'd say "a-boot" instead of about. It's just polite.

If I moved to Canada I'd say "a-boot" instead of about. It's just polite.

And 99% of Canadians would look at you and break out laughing. This accent is heavily concentrated on the East coast and was influenced by Scottish immigrants. Imagine Groundskeeper Willie pronouncing the word, and you'd have it about right. Implying that you'd learn to say "a-boot" to be polite is like saying that anyone going to the USA should practice saying "Y'all come back now, ya hear?" to be polite.

I'm a linguistics student who has studied the politics of language policy so I should put my word in...

Most immigrants do learn the language of the country they move to, if only because of the oppurtunities it opens up for them. However, they will usually keep their home language, and use it among members of their own community. Unfortunately, the natives often get offended or upset when they see immigrants using their language amongst themselves, or see businesses using another language. It mostly has to do with issues of pride and fear of otherness. When natives say "they need to speak our language", they often really mean "stop speaking the other language". It's often just an excuse to keep immigrant communities marginalized.

From a practical perspective, if a group of immigrants are able to make a living using their own language, I see no need to make them stop.

France has certain issues with language that the U.S. does not, such as having French as an official language and not defining themselves as an immigrant nation. Also, although they are officially racially neutral, their culture and government are really white-controlled, more so than the U.S..

Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).

Why is learning the language and culture of the country you move to viewed as divisive? All of my grandparents came to the U.S. at around 1900 from eastern Europe. None of them expected to be able to continue speaking German or Lithuanian once they got here so they learned English. My parents, aunts and uncles all spoke English and succeeded in taking part in the "American dream" (house, education, kids went to college if they wanted to, etc.). That wouldn't have happened if they were still acting like they were still in the "old country."

Insisting that immigrants learn the language and culture isn't divisive. It's the best way for them to fit into their new society and succeed. How far would Sarkozy have goten if he only spoke Hungarian?

I've heard Mme. Royal speak, and to be honest, I'm amazed she got as far as she did.

I'm no fan of Sarko or Bush, but come on people, was this really the best the opposition could do? The Socialists would have been better off kidnapping John Kerry.

He may be a stuffed shirt, but at least the guy knows how to comport himself in public, ferchrissakes. (Besides, I hear he speaks French.) Sego came across as a reactive banshee who would promise anything to get elected -- think of the evil spawn of Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton.

Ew. On second thought, don't. I need to take a shower after that one..

France will always come to the aid of the U.S. when it seeks it from us." Why he's called America's New Poodle.

Sarkozy has made a point of highlighting the French love for Coca-Cola, jeans and American movies; concluding from this that he would be inclined to support Dubyah's policies is a stone's throw too far. Sarkozy is neither stupid nor inclined to political suicide. He has promised the USA friendship, but immediately made clear that the Americans would have to accept "that friends can think differently". I think Sarkozy knows very well that the Bush administration is allergic to constructive criticism, but that doesn't matter any more. Sarkozy's real problem is finding common ground with the next American president, and he may well opt for backing the future winner early, instead of associating himself with the loser in office. For example, Sarkozy's position on Iraq is not that far distant from the position the next US president is likely to have, i.e. phased withdrawal.

Something to think about though. You have a country with a female Minister of Defense and an active Communist Party and they won't elect a female? So Hillary's chances rank somewhere below slim and none?

The French communist party is now a mere shadow of what it used to be.

Royal's problem is not that she is female, but that she is a poor campaigner. Her starting position was not that bad, her selection as the socialist candidate generated some genuine enthusiasm. But then she blew it. She was gaffe-prone throughout the campaign, her political platform was a collection of crowd-pleasers, her statements on policy consisted mostly of baked air, and in the decisive last phase she resorted to blatant scare tactics.

On the other hand, Americans could do worse than adopt the French election system. A genuine, fair two-round election, an 85% voter turn-out, a clear majority for the winner, and the election over at election night --- not bad, isn't it?

When Sarkozy is done with France do you think he could come over here for a few years? I like his ideas on immigrants, it would be nice if our "President" had the balls!

A hard line on immigrants won't happen in the USA. The Democrats wouldn't think it's nice, and the Republicans are split between the social conservatives who want it and the monied folk who don't think it's in their best interest.

The election year attempt to push immigration reform through the Republican Congress was one of several factors leading to that party's recent implosion.

A hard line on immigrants won't happen in the USA. The Democrats wouldn't think it's nice, and the Republicans are split between the social conservatives who want it and the monied folk who don't think it's in their best interest.

The immigration problem in France is a world away from the "problems" we have in the US. By and large, our immigrants either end up working hard in the lower runs of society, and many end up leading productive lives in the professional class (doctors, engineers, etc). Many groups in our immigrant population assimilate (most everyone outside of some hispanics) and even the ones that don't do not go out of their way to resist American culture.

In comparison, the French have to deal with huge waves of lower-class immigrants who clog up their social welfare system. Moreover, not only do they not assimilate, but they actively resist and antagonize the native culture.

We have our problems with immigrants sure (like most poor classes, they commit more crimes, etc), but there is no way to compare our problems to those faced by the French. When we have Hispanics rioting en masse in the streets, like Muslims in France are doing, then maybe your sentiments will be valid.

What do the rioting immigrants expecting from the white French, exactly? It seems to me like they already get far more support than they do in 95% of the countries on Earth, and probably just as much as in the US.Every OTHER commentary on the recent riots (except yours) hold that the rioters, while not technically immigrants, are not at all assimilated into French culture and nearly all, if not all, were Muslims. The media, in the interest of political correctness, tends to call them "youths." I'd be intere

Just because the person you disagree with wins doesn't mean that the system is broken. I don't recall hearing a single complaint about the French electoral system. Maybe the conservative's ideas actually appealed to more voters.

Actually, if someone has to be compared to George W. Bush it really is Nicolas Sarkozy. France is now as polarized as the US was after the Bush 2004 victory.

Many liberals in France were not conviced by Segolene Royal at all, just like many liberals in the US weren't conviced by John Kerry. They did not vote for a candidate but against someone else. The "lesser of two evil" syndrome that is so familiar in US politics.

Sarkozy won, but just like George W. Bush in 2004, the people that did not vote for him (half of the population) really hate him and what he stands for (pro big corporation, anti-immigration etc.).

He now is president of a deeply divided country... we all saw how well that worked out for the US.

You speak as if the politicians are creating the divisions, rather than being the manifestation of them.

Countries are divided. That's how it is. If voting one way creates a relatively peaceful union where differences are worked out politely and within the system, and voting the other way creates a fractured country full of acrimony and bad feelings, then one side is clearly a bad loser (and that's more dangerous to democracy than you might think, as the essense of democracy is to have the losers accept their loss [jerf.org], not crown the winners).

And if that is the case, the side that is being the poor losers and choosing to tear apart the democracy rather than accept loss is the side that, when they win, produces the relatively peaceful government. The side that, when they win, produces "polarization" is the more democratic side. (Being in a Democracy means your side loses sometimes. That's life.)

Take that as you will. I've deliberately not name names. For one thing, it's never a choice between total chaos or total harmony, but I'd be confident that taken as trends, this point stands.

If you're a second-generation Muslim with a foreign accent, something is seriously wrong. If you immigrate to a country, you should raise your children to natively speak the language of that country, end of story.

I am myself a first-generation Muslim immigrant to the US. I absolutely cannot stand Muslims who don't realize that in immigrating to a foreign country, they must put the culture of their new country above the culture of the country which they left. Countries should not change to accommodate the culture of immigrants. That is not to say that countries should not evolve their culture, but rather that the culture of a country should be grown at home, through the established processes of cultural change within that country, not imported wholesale from abroad.

I can understand that the liberal tendencies of some Europeans make them hesitant about promoting their own culture above those of others. However, there is nothing wrong with the idea that France should be the home of French culture. Certainly, Algerians believe that Algerian should be the home of Algerian culture, not culture imported from elsewhere!

Moreover, and this is my personal opinionated view, it is vital that European countries maintain their western culture, for the sake of their future prosperity. I don't have any delusions that western culture is perfect, but as someone with a bit of experience with both, western culture is far preferable to modern Islamic culture. It is honestly distressing to me that many liberal-minded individuals that look down upon the worst elements of American culture (religiosity, contempt for science, narrow-mindedness, philosophical absolutism) have no problem modern Islamic culture, which displays many of the same deleterious elements!

Hussein was complying, grumpily, with UN inspections. The US is the aggressor in a war which was no more necessary than one against any other murderous despot. It sucks that you started it, and it sucks that you can't get out of it without leaving the country as a wilderness of genocidal lawlessness, but it's your baby.

"Not one french journalist dared mentionning it (are they all scared ?)..."

That, or nobody over there gives a fuck about a politician's love life so long as he does his job. It's the United States where our skewed view of "moral decency" calls for this kind of prying by "journalists" (for whom these "moral" directives don't apply) giving us political appointees who call for abstinence-only education while visiting a brothel.

Although I will say that a divorce is far more notable in France than it is in the

This guy sounds like Reagan.That's the problem. Not the illegal immigration part, but the part about him upending prosperity comes to mind- this time, that sizable "minority" has to upend Sarko. If the country sells out to Asia with his effort, then it will be lost like the US and UK. It will have lost its character, the people losing their prosperity, and the country as a whole as the country that stood up to the evils of globalization.

It was actually kind of a joke, but obviously it whooshed over the heads of, well, everyone. I mean, people complain that poor people want to enter America and there's a bloody advert to do so etched into one of your most famous landmarks.